- Simple Yes-No Indicators (possible responses: 0, 4, skip)
- Graded Yes-No Indicators (possible responses: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, skip)
- Diplomatic Position Indicators (possible responses: 0, 2, 4, skip)
Simple Yes-No Indicators
These indicators are simple “Yes-No” questions in which an observation of an influence phenomenon warrants a “Yes” answer and a score of 4. Meanwhile, if the influence has not been observed, the Indicator warrants a “No” response and a score of 0. Example Indicator: “The PRC is my country’s number one trading partner (for trade in goods only).” [Economy Domain]Skipping Indicators
There are three reasons that allow for skipping Indicators. In each case, experts provide further elaboration on why the Indicator has been skipped, or write down their insider knowledge or personal experience, and provide hyperlink(s) to explain the skip if possible.Respondents will be requested to skip no more than 10 Indicators.
Graded Yes-No Indicators
These are Indicators requiring a “Yes” or “No” answer, with “Yes” answers calling for a graded assessment from 1-4 for scale and significance. The grading system addresses the problem that the scale and significance of an Indicator can vary across countries, and therefore so does the level of PRC influence. For example, one Indicator asks whether Chinese Students and Scholars’ Associations (CSSAs) are present in the country. In terms of scale, there may be a CSSA at a single university or multiple universities. Assessing for significance, the universities at which CSSAs are present could be nationally prominent or relatively less prestigious. We therefore provide a grading matrix that accounts for these two factors and codes Indicator responses based on scale and significance along a range from zero to four: In the example of university CSSAs, a local expert in a small country might observe CSSAs at 5 major universities and give a score of 4 (“Significant” and “More than a few”) – whereas an expert in a very large country might observe CSSAs at 5 less prominent universities and give a score of 1 (“Insignificant” and “Less than a few”). In this way, the methodology produces graded Indicator responses for significance and scale that can be compared across countries of varying size. Example Indicator: “In my country, one or more think tanks and academic research centers belong to PRC-affiliated networks/associations (such as: the Silk Road Think Tank Association, Silk Road Think Tank Network [SiLKS], Belt and Road Studies Network, University Alliance of the Silk Road, University Consortium of the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road).” [Academic Domain]Diplomatic Position Indicators
There are four Indicators within the Foreign Policy Domain which do not follow the Indicator structures outlined above. These are Indicators #8, #9, #10, and #11 of the Foreign Policy Domain. These Indicators test for three different types of diplomatic positions towards contentious China-related political issues, with the following four options:- “Rejection/denunciation” - 0 score
- “Remaining silent” - 2 score
- “Support” - 4 score.
- Skip
“My government has supported, remained silent about, or opposed the PRC’s territorial claims (such as on the South China Sea arbitration ruling issued by the UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal in July 2016); except claims over Taiwan, which are indirectly covered in indicator 7.” [Foreign Policy Indicator #9]
“My government has supported, remained silent about, or opposed the PRC’s treatment, governance, or policy towards the Uyghur population in Xinjiang.” [Foreign Policy Indicator #10]
“My government has supported, remained silent about, or opposed the PRC’s treatment, governance, or policy toward the Tibet population.” [Foreign Policy Indicator #11]
“My government has supported, remained silent about, or opposed the PRC’s ongoing repression in Hong Kong, such as the imposition of the National Security Law or other actions to persecute Hong Kong protestors or activists.”